First off, I strongly disagree with "the problem with prohibiting gameplay assistance is that it skews the incentives too much in favour of skilled players and pushes casual players (and investors) out." As my prior statement makes clear, I feel that bots and battle helpers significantly erode the role of skill. Normal ranked is one thing but when it comes to ranked leaderboard, tournaments, and brawls it is supposed to be about competition and skill. Removing the skill factor defeats the purpose of having competition. Imagine people complaining that they can't win Olympic medals because "their lifestyle doesn't allow them to invest hundreds of hours into training and practice." Complaining they can't win world chess tournaments because "their lifestyle doesn't allow them to invest hundreds of hours into gameplay strategy." Complaining they can't ace standardized tests, school exams, or professional exams because "their lifestyle doesn't allow them to invest hundreds of hours into studying and memorization." In a competition, if you don't have the innate skill or the time to build up your skill, then no you shouldn't be winning the top prizes. And no, I don't think the human-only modern ranked change has significantly allowed a competitive player to definitely earn more than a casual one if the casual one is using a battle helper all the time.
I disagree with your logic on both "Enforcement is not feasible" and "Public vs Private." Using your line of thinking, the Olympics and any world sports organizations should never have any rules against performance enhancing substances or any other advantages (sharkskin suits, blade runner prosthetics, high altitude training) because the Russians (or other groups) are going to find a way to cheat anyway. When you have the entire Russian government backing cheating efforts (like we saw with doping in Sochi), it's going to be largely undetectable and even if it is detected it will largely be unenforceable (and any such punishment is just a slap on the wrist). So a rule against doping only hurts the people who follow the rules, doesn't do enough to catch those who are willing to break the rules, and just forces doping efforts to go underground to stay hidden.
Due to cognitive dissonance, most people are the hero of their own story and very few are willing to concede (publicly or to themselves) that they are anything but the protagonist. You claim that you care about reputation and a TOS addition would cause you to be "replaced by a private individual who doesn't care about reputation." Well, in Bubke's mind, he has always botted responsibly. (Which is ironic when most of the demand for Xbot tournament/brawl battle helpers was because people wanted to keep up specifically against Bubke's advantage). Even j6969 thought he was doing good, and kept trying to differentiate his botnet from other botfarms. Way too many people always say "everyone else is botting recklessly but I am botting in a responsible manner."
And as for your arguments in "Demand for gameplay assistance," of course there's demand for it because it's an easy shortcut that bypasses the need for skill or time. There will also always be demand for performance enhancing drugs and other forms of unfair assistance (butt plugs in a chess match?). These forms of additional assistance are "continuously getting used for a reason." Imagine for a moment if there was a chess "battle helper" that gave you strategic chess options, letting you choose between a Garry Kasparov strategy, a Magnus Carlsen strategy, a Bobby Fischer, and a Jose Raul Capablanca strategy (based on data from all the chess matches each of those legends played). Then chess players who don't have time or interest to learn strategy, could still have a decent performance because that's how they enjoy playing the game. In a competition, it's not about letting players play the game how they want. Competitions and tournaments have rules and standards for a reason. Otherwise, why prohibit athletes from using performance enhancing drugs if that's how they want to compete? Why should there be academic rules against plagiarism or AI assistance if that's how students want to learn?
You say "Removing the skill factor defeats the purpose of having competition" and compare Splinterlands to the Olympics.
I think this is silly and misses the point. Splinterlands is an AUTO-BATTLER, which is probably one of the most casual game genres there is.
Splinterlands is not a competitive game for the most part - otherwise we would not have had bots and battle helpers until now.
I think you're trying to push the competition narrative to support your argument, but it just doesn't apply here.
"..if you don't have the innate skill or the time to build up your skill, then no you shouldn't be winning the top prizes"
I agree with that, but it's not about the top prizes here. It's about earning at all
My point is about how much we should value skill. It seems to me that you think a player without skill in the game should not be earning at all.
I completely disagree with that. As I mentioned above, skilled players should earn more than casual players, but the difference can't be too big.
Removing battle helper from tournaments, brawls and modern ranked is an overreach. You would be only leaving wild ranked for casual players, which has much fewer rewards.
This is why I'm arguing that the proposal gives skill too much value.
About enforcement, again you compare to the Olympics, which is strange.
Drug testing in the olympics may be ineffective, but it does work in some cases.
My point is that Battle Helper is FUNDAMENTALLY not detectable. Not difficult or unlikely, just NOT POSSIBLE.
If there was no chance of detecting cheaters in the olympics, they wouldn't be bothering with it either.
Even if it's unreliable - can you come up with any methods of detecting battle helper?
Splinterlands is a game, like traditional CCG's/TCG's or traditional computer games, only with a web3 component. Other card games (whether it be Magic or Pokemon), chess, and esports (whether it be League of Legends, Dota 2, Fortnite, Apex Legends, etc.) also have significant skill components.
Tournaments are about competition of skill between players.
Brawls are about competition of skill between guilds.
Ranked Leaderboards are also about competition of skill between players.
So no, I don't think battle helpers or bots belong in those areas.
Speaking just for myself, I'm not necessarily opposed to bots and battle helpers having a space within Wild and/or Modern, I just don't think they should be eligible for any leaderboard prizes. And there should either be a separate space for bots or a separate space only for humans.
The reason I bring up the Olympics and world chess is because both of those groups have had to deal with various forms of rule-breaking.
Also, I disagree with trying to differentiate between a bot and an automated battle helper. The way people are defining a battle helper is essentially that the bot is still playing for you but you have to be there in person to monitor it and press enter (though one can hypothetically create an actual robot to physically click and press enter, so systems that allow battle helpers would still have trouble identifying a robot using an automated battle helper).
And yes, there are many methods that can help identify the use of a battle helper. Most are not conclusive just by themselves, but I believe that using a combination of them can identify the use to a high degree of certainty. And yes, I have forwarded all those methods to our Data team, who have a lot of relevant expertise in this area. If this proposal passes, I am confident that our Data and Development teams can implement a system that will identify the majority of cases and over time it can be improved to steadily identify more and more instances.
Furthermore, even if something is difficult or impossible to achieve, having something enshrined in the TOS is a statement of principle/values/ideals. It is an indicator of what the company and community are striving to achieve even if it may not be reachable (like freedom or complete decentralization or world peace). It influences the attitude of the community and potential players factor that in when deciding whether or not to join.
I did respond to some of his argument above.
Also notice that he copy-pasted his wall-of-text as a reply to my post, without replying to anything I said.
I decided to focus on his point about knowing many methods of detection.
Why would he not want to share the methods?
With the anti-bot proposal we knew the methods of detection (Cloudfare).
As a community we need to know what measures will go in place, otherwise we can get banned without any explanation.
I'm not asking for an in-depth explanation. A name would be enough..
Or you think even knowing the name would compromise it? It doesn't sound like a very good method if simply knowing its name would make it ineffective..
I can think of half a dozen methods to help identify battle helper use.
For obvious reasons it wouldn't be prudent to just publicly state them, especially to a bot and battle helper developer, since it just provides an easy blueprint for how to develop workarounds.
But I did forward my detection methods to half a dozen devs.
I think your response here does a really good job showing your true colors:
You assume that just because someone doesn't respond to you that they don't know something. As @jacekw pointed out there are many reasons why someone might not respond.
You jump to conclusions and make accusations about "making things up."
@splinterbank Sure, I would be happy to.
First off, I strongly disagree with "the problem with prohibiting gameplay assistance is that it skews the incentives too much in favour of skilled players and pushes casual players (and investors) out." As my prior statement makes clear, I feel that bots and battle helpers significantly erode the role of skill. Normal ranked is one thing but when it comes to ranked leaderboard, tournaments, and brawls it is supposed to be about competition and skill. Removing the skill factor defeats the purpose of having competition. Imagine people complaining that they can't win Olympic medals because "their lifestyle doesn't allow them to invest hundreds of hours into training and practice." Complaining they can't win world chess tournaments because "their lifestyle doesn't allow them to invest hundreds of hours into gameplay strategy." Complaining they can't ace standardized tests, school exams, or professional exams because "their lifestyle doesn't allow them to invest hundreds of hours into studying and memorization." In a competition, if you don't have the innate skill or the time to build up your skill, then no you shouldn't be winning the top prizes. And no, I don't think the human-only modern ranked change has significantly allowed a competitive player to definitely earn more than a casual one if the casual one is using a battle helper all the time.
I disagree with your logic on both "Enforcement is not feasible" and "Public vs Private." Using your line of thinking, the Olympics and any world sports organizations should never have any rules against performance enhancing substances or any other advantages (sharkskin suits, blade runner prosthetics, high altitude training) because the Russians (or other groups) are going to find a way to cheat anyway. When you have the entire Russian government backing cheating efforts (like we saw with doping in Sochi), it's going to be largely undetectable and even if it is detected it will largely be unenforceable (and any such punishment is just a slap on the wrist). So a rule against doping only hurts the people who follow the rules, doesn't do enough to catch those who are willing to break the rules, and just forces doping efforts to go underground to stay hidden.
Due to cognitive dissonance, most people are the hero of their own story and very few are willing to concede (publicly or to themselves) that they are anything but the protagonist. You claim that you care about reputation and a TOS addition would cause you to be "replaced by a private individual who doesn't care about reputation." Well, in Bubke's mind, he has always botted responsibly. (Which is ironic when most of the demand for Xbot tournament/brawl battle helpers was because people wanted to keep up specifically against Bubke's advantage). Even j6969 thought he was doing good, and kept trying to differentiate his botnet from other botfarms. Way too many people always say "everyone else is botting recklessly but I am botting in a responsible manner."
And as for your arguments in "Demand for gameplay assistance," of course there's demand for it because it's an easy shortcut that bypasses the need for skill or time. There will also always be demand for performance enhancing drugs and other forms of unfair assistance (butt plugs in a chess match?). These forms of additional assistance are "continuously getting used for a reason." Imagine for a moment if there was a chess "battle helper" that gave you strategic chess options, letting you choose between a Garry Kasparov strategy, a Magnus Carlsen strategy, a Bobby Fischer, and a Jose Raul Capablanca strategy (based on data from all the chess matches each of those legends played). Then chess players who don't have time or interest to learn strategy, could still have a decent performance because that's how they enjoy playing the game. In a competition, it's not about letting players play the game how they want. Competitions and tournaments have rules and standards for a reason. Otherwise, why prohibit athletes from using performance enhancing drugs if that's how they want to compete? Why should there be academic rules against plagiarism or AI assistance if that's how students want to learn?
Thanks for replying.
You say "Removing the skill factor defeats the purpose of having competition" and compare Splinterlands to the Olympics.
I think this is silly and misses the point. Splinterlands is an AUTO-BATTLER, which is probably one of the most casual game genres there is.
Splinterlands is not a competitive game for the most part - otherwise we would not have had bots and battle helpers until now.
I think you're trying to push the competition narrative to support your argument, but it just doesn't apply here.
"..if you don't have the innate skill or the time to build up your skill, then no you shouldn't be winning the top prizes"
I agree with that, but it's not about the top prizes here. It's about earning at all
My point is about how much we should value skill. It seems to me that you think a player without skill in the game should not be earning at all.
I completely disagree with that. As I mentioned above, skilled players should earn more than casual players, but the difference can't be too big.
Removing battle helper from tournaments, brawls and modern ranked is an overreach. You would be only leaving wild ranked for casual players, which has much fewer rewards.
This is why I'm arguing that the proposal gives skill too much value.
About enforcement, again you compare to the Olympics, which is strange.
Drug testing in the olympics may be ineffective, but it does work in some cases.
My point is that Battle Helper is FUNDAMENTALLY not detectable. Not difficult or unlikely, just NOT POSSIBLE.
If there was no chance of detecting cheaters in the olympics, they wouldn't be bothering with it either.
Even if it's unreliable - can you come up with any methods of detecting battle helper?
Splinterlands is a game, like traditional CCG's/TCG's or traditional computer games, only with a web3 component. Other card games (whether it be Magic or Pokemon), chess, and esports (whether it be League of Legends, Dota 2, Fortnite, Apex Legends, etc.) also have significant skill components.
Tournaments are about competition of skill between players.
Brawls are about competition of skill between guilds.
Ranked Leaderboards are also about competition of skill between players.
So no, I don't think battle helpers or bots belong in those areas.
Speaking just for myself, I'm not necessarily opposed to bots and battle helpers having a space within Wild and/or Modern, I just don't think they should be eligible for any leaderboard prizes. And there should either be a separate space for bots or a separate space only for humans.
The reason I bring up the Olympics and world chess is because both of those groups have had to deal with various forms of rule-breaking.
Also, I disagree with trying to differentiate between a bot and an automated battle helper. The way people are defining a battle helper is essentially that the bot is still playing for you but you have to be there in person to monitor it and press enter (though one can hypothetically create an actual robot to physically click and press enter, so systems that allow battle helpers would still have trouble identifying a robot using an automated battle helper).
And yes, there are many methods that can help identify the use of a battle helper. Most are not conclusive just by themselves, but I believe that using a combination of them can identify the use to a high degree of certainty. And yes, I have forwarded all those methods to our Data team, who have a lot of relevant expertise in this area. If this proposal passes, I am confident that our Data and Development teams can implement a system that will identify the majority of cases and over time it can be improved to steadily identify more and more instances.
Furthermore, even if something is difficult or impossible to achieve, having something enshrined in the TOS is a statement of principle/values/ideals. It is an indicator of what the company and community are striving to achieve even if it may not be reachable (like freedom or complete decentralization or world peace). It influences the attitude of the community and potential players factor that in when deciding whether or not to join.
Can you name and describe one method?
It's been 3 days, so I assume you don't know any detection methods?
People trust your opinion because you're a team member. It's not a good look to make things up..
I know at least 2 methods (as a human player) that can indentify battle helper usage with high enough probability for most cases.
Not sure about Byz but maybe:
I did respond to some of his argument above.
Also notice that he copy-pasted his wall-of-text as a reply to my post, without replying to anything I said.
I decided to focus on his point about knowing many methods of detection.
Why would he not want to share the methods?
With the anti-bot proposal we knew the methods of detection (Cloudfare).
As a community we need to know what measures will go in place, otherwise we can get banned without any explanation.
I'm not asking for an in-depth explanation. A name would be enough..
Or you think even knowing the name would compromise it? It doesn't sound like a very good method if simply knowing its name would make it ineffective..
I can think of half a dozen methods to help identify battle helper use.
For obvious reasons it wouldn't be prudent to just publicly state them, especially to a bot and battle helper developer, since it just provides an easy blueprint for how to develop workarounds.
But I did forward my detection methods to half a dozen devs.
I think your response here does a really good job showing your true colors:
You assume that just because someone doesn't respond to you that they don't know something. As @jacekw pointed out there are many reasons why someone might not respond.
You jump to conclusions and make accusations about "making things up."
Right.. so the idea is to have undisclosed detection methods, which can be used to restrict or ban accounts, without revealing the methods?
The co-founder of the game stated that he can't think of detection methods. Yet you insist that you know dozens of them, but can't reveal any of them.
So yeah, I'm sceptical
Yes I CAN.
I forgot to add:
If you agree with any of my positions, please consider voting YES on proposal #8470